California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one • Hacker News Board

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#21

Post by rhino369 » Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 8:41 PM UTC

spamizbad wrote: post #6

slowmovintarget wrote: post #3

Thesis of the article: Californians are fleeing California and causing the same housing pressure in the spots they flee to. The real question is whether these other locations can avoid the high-density housing NIMBY response that became entrenched in California. It isn't just a matter of income disparity, which the article pivots to. It's also a matter of density and demand.

The challenge you have is that people view housing as an investment . Americans expect their home values to keep pace with inflation. And because housing values are so expensive, there's a tremendous amount of psychological pressure to "preserve" what they've purchased beyond their own property line (eg: "Neighborhood character"). For these reason, they're going to oppose any new supply entering the market. The only…

In California, the only reason people can oppose new projects is because the government enables them to have a say in someone else's property. So you don't have to force development, but you do have to remove NIMBY's ability to veto projects.

That starts with reforming permitting processes and zoning regulations.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#22

Post by jeffbee » Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 8:41 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #4

Nowhere is building enough housing for growth. In low cost of living places, chances are if you look at population data, the metro region has been stagnant for decades which has alleviated pressure on supply. In any area with growth at all, prices rise because we don't build actual dense housing like we did before WWII (when row houses and mixed use development in walking distance to frequent public transit were the…

It's handy to say "nowhere is building" but it's not really supported by the data. Look at Dallas and Houston compared to San Francisco. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=B6Tc

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#23

Post by kwk1 » Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 8:43 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #22

asdff wrote: post #4

Nowhere is building enough housing for growth. In low cost of living places, chances are if you look at population data, the metro region has been stagnant for decades which has alleviated pressure on supply. In any area with growth at all, prices rise because we don't build actual dense housing like we did before WWII (when row houses and mixed use development in walking distance to frequent public transit were the…

It's handy to say "nowhere is building" but it's not really supported by the data. Look at Dallas and Houston compared to San Francisco. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=B6Tc

Your quote chopped off an important qualifier present in the original comment.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#24

Post by kodah » Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 8:44 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #8

I feel like I got served an appetizer and a small dessert, with no main course in between. California has a housing crisis in some cities. Californians are moving out of those cities. The cities that they're moving into are experiencing an increase in demand (directly restating the previous). That's pushing up prices (not shocking), which is preventing some people with less money from outbidding people with more mone…

> The only thing new I learned from this article is a rough estimate of how much higher an ex-Californian's budget is on average, which was novel but hardly surprising.

My story related to this: Californians (and other comparatively rich people) moved to Dallas, TX in droves and outpriced an already saturated housing market. This was happening far before COVID but I think it was really mostly talked about in the circles of state to state income inequality which is largely ignored. When you have loans like the FHA or VA loan this means while you may be qualified for a loan, you'll never actually get a house near where you work in big cities. Instead, you're forced to buy in towns that are increasingly far away from these cities.

As someone who has been through this nightmare I don't think "Single Family Zoning is bad, but only a few places have been enlightened enough to limit or ban it" is the right conclusion or even near it. Generally speaking, remote work can help alleviate this problem because then you remove the problem that I experienced which is that I was driving 2.5 hours to and from work every day.

Some other things that I've read is that these people also destabilize the cost of goods in enough quantity. The outcome is that communities that have seen decades of development will soon price out the resident who paid for its development in taxes only to reward people who are taking advantage of inequality.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#25

Post by cltby » Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #14

spamizbad wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The challenge you have is that people view housing as an investment . Americans expect their home values to keep pace with inflation. And because housing values are so expensive, there's a tremendous amount of psychological pressure to "preserve" what they've purchased beyond their own property line (eg: "Neighborhood character"). For these reason, they're going to oppose any new supply entering the market. The only…

You're being very unfair here. When you choose a place to live you are not only choosing the structure in which you reside, you are choosing the surrounding environment as well. People's desire to keep the environment from changing too much extends beyond financial interests. I live in a quiet suburban neighborhood, and I want it to remain a quiet suburban neighborhood even if the value of my house drops. In fact, I…

The structure itself does depreciate (ask any landlord!). It's the land value that's surging.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#26

Post by shuckles » Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #14

spamizbad wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The challenge you have is that people view housing as an investment . Americans expect their home values to keep pace with inflation. And because housing values are so expensive, there's a tremendous amount of psychological pressure to "preserve" what they've purchased beyond their own property line (eg: "Neighborhood character"). For these reason, they're going to oppose any new supply entering the market. The only…

You're being very unfair here. When you choose a place to live you are not only choosing the structure in which you reside, you are choosing the surrounding environment as well. People's desire to keep the environment from changing too much extends beyond financial interests. I live in a quiet suburban neighborhood, and I want it to remain a quiet suburban neighborhood even if the value of my house drops. In fact, I…

Unfortunately (for you), your desire for a quiet suburban neighborhood should not give you the ability to immiserate other people who want to live there by prohibiting the construction of homes for them. Do you value your quiet suburban neighborhood enough to buy and pay property taxes on the whole block or subdivision? If not, I recommend you look for estates on acreage in remote areas.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#27

Post by AdrianB1 » Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 8:46 PM UTC

pirocks wrote: post #19

I would argue this isn't a California problem or a national problem. It's a global problem. Example: Hong Kong. In Hong Kong the government funds itself in large part through property ownership. They are therefore incentivised to make housing as expensive as possible. The result is predictable. I would argue that in democracies this will remain a problem as long as the majority of voters benefit from high housing pri…

Hong Kong has a very limited territory to build on, while most of the USA is free space. Yes, you are right on the bad government incentive.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#28

Post by shuckles » Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 8:46 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #21

spamizbad wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The challenge you have is that people view housing as an investment . Americans expect their home values to keep pace with inflation. And because housing values are so expensive, there's a tremendous amount of psychological pressure to "preserve" what they've purchased beyond their own property line (eg: "Neighborhood character"). For these reason, they're going to oppose any new supply entering the market. The only…

In California, the only reason people can oppose new projects is because the government enables them to have a say in someone else's property. So you don't have to force development, but you do have to remove NIMBY's ability to veto projects. That starts with reforming permitting processes and zoning regulations.

Single family zoning, though invented in Berkeley, is a national phenomenon.

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#29

Post by majormajor » Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 8:47 PM UTC

spamizbad wrote: post #6

slowmovintarget wrote: post #3

Thesis of the article: Californians are fleeing California and causing the same housing pressure in the spots they flee to. The real question is whether these other locations can avoid the high-density housing NIMBY response that became entrenched in California. It isn't just a matter of income disparity, which the article pivots to. It's also a matter of density and demand.

The challenge you have is that people view housing as an investment . Americans expect their home values to keep pace with inflation. And because housing values are so expensive, there's a tremendous amount of psychological pressure to "preserve" what they've purchased beyond their own property line (eg: "Neighborhood character"). For these reason, they're going to oppose any new supply entering the market. The only…

That's not the big challenge. Upzoning and higher density increases the value of the land. That's why developers want to do it in the first place. Cashing out when someone wants to buy up your neighborhood's land, and getting something nicer somewhere else, would be the purely-financial play.

The big challenge is that people chose to live in a certain place because it had certain features. And people don't want to have to move constantly. So folks pushing to change the nature of the areas will always cause opposition ("why do we have to leave or change, why can't they go somewhere else?").

Re: California’s affordable housing problem is really a national one

#30

Post by lisper » Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 8:47 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #20

lisper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being very unfair here. When you choose a place to live you are not only choosing the structure in which you reside, you are choosing the surrounding environment as well. People's desire to keep the environment from changing too much extends beyond financial interests. I live in a quiet suburban neighborhood, and I want it to remain a quiet suburban neighborhood even if the value of my house drops. In fact, I…

If your gains are less than $250K (single) or $500K (married-filing-jointly), you've owned it for 2 years, and you've lived there 2 of the last 5 years, your gains are excluded federally. In general, the structure does depreciate very slowly (in real dollars) and the land appreciates in value (at least in desirable areas), typically more than swamping the slight depreciation on the structure.

We live in Northern California. We bought this house at the bottom of the 2008 crash. Our gains are considerably more than the exclusion limit. (One of the many stupid things about the tax code is that the exclusion limit is not indexed to time.)